Christianity: Where's the Love?

[Penumbra]

what is conservative and non-conservative? are we talking about political orientations?

Religions that place a lot of importance on doctrine, lots of exclusive beliefs, and lots of ideas that they're right and the countless other belief systems in the world are wrong.

Not necessarily political orientations, other than that conservative religions do play a large role in politics in some countries.

there's also a thing like the metaphysics of love. god is love is the core metaphysical claim of christianity. it is a statement about who or what god is.

i think it's also important to think about why so many elite theologians thought that the creeds and doctrines were so important, why so much emphasis gets put on them. it's not intrinsically bad to focus so much on doctrine and metaphysical claims, because they can influence how we act on other people.

take the trinity. of course it serves as something to bash people over the heads with, and to define boundaries and identities, but it is also something that means something. it has to mean something before it is turned into a weapon. the doctrine of the trinity is not an empty signifier, even if many people don't really think about it too much and mindlessly repeat it, which i think the churches are at least partly to blame for.

if you read people who have put a lot of thought into it, like the cappadocian fathers or the social trinitarians, you'll see that the trinity is not at all removed from ethics or love. in fact, it gives a beautiful foundation to the very idea of love at all, it makes what jesus teaches us to do clearer in a lot of ways. metaphysics and doctrine then serve as grounding for what we are supposed to do.

now i don't mean to say that someone who doesn't have this theological background can't love as god wants them to do, but this talk about who god is and so forth is not useless either to love, which is the greatest commandment and the reason why anything and anyone exists.

Do you honestly feel that statements regarding the trinity have a large impact on how most believers live their lives from day to day?

 

[Thana]

But don't you see?

Have I criticized scripture in this thread? I haven't. Except for mentioning the Lord's Prayer, I haven't mentioned scripture (I do that enough when I've mentioned acts of genocide by the protagonists in scripture, in other threads). Scripture, particularly new testament scripture, involves a few people writing things. The Nicene Creed was a large collection of people forming a definition of their faith, and then there are these core common prayers.

So what I'm suggesting is, there's a disconnect between the roots of the religion, and the creeds, doctrines, organizations, and especially priorities that have been built around it.

Okay.. Let me sum up.

Essentially, You asked where is the love. I showed it to you. It's in the bible, One of the major components of Christianity. People, who created these prayers and creeds, did so because these things were major topics at the time.

The bible clearly shows that love is the most important thing to Christians. But, As I said, Christians are people and people prioritize what suits them.

So is there a disconnect? Yes. That's not news. But it's not the fault of Christianity itself, It's the fault of the people who follow it.

 

[Nooj]

Religions that place a lot of importance on doctrine, lots of exclusive beliefs, and lots of ideas that they're right and the countless other belief systems in the world are wrong.

Not necessarily political orientations, other than that conservative religions do play a large role in politics in some countries.

okay thank you.

Do you honestly feel that statements regarding the trinity have a large impact on how most believers live their lives from day to day?

no, but it should. how we live our lives and how we treat other people is a microcosm of the divine life within the trinity. this is what christians have hoped to enter throughout christian history, the divine love between the three persons of the trinity.

so you know what, i think we should get much much much more training and education in the trinity, not less. i think that might make us better followers of christ. and better lovers in this world.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why would you expect a theological statement discussing the conclusion of the divide between Arianism and Apostolic trinitarianism (Nicene Creed) to involve humanitarianism or love?

 

[Penumbra]

Why would you expect a theological statement discussing the conclusion of the divide between Arianism and Apostolic trinitarianism (Nicene Creed) to involve humanitarianism or love?

Because it continues to form a definition of the beliefs of mainstream Christianity, and continues to be collectively said in church services for various denominations.

Overall I find the content of the creeds, prayers, rituals, and proportionate time spent in services, to be an interesting use of time and space.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But don't you see?

Have I criticized scripture in this thread? I haven't. Except for mentioning the Lord's Prayer, I haven't mentioned scripture (I do that enough when I've mentioned acts of genocide by the protagonists in scripture, in other threads). Scripture, particularly new testament scripture, involves a few people writing things. The Nicene Creed was a large collection of people forming a definition of their faith, and then there are these core common prayers.

So what I'm suggesting is, there's a disconnect between the roots of the religion, and the creeds, doctrines, organizations, and especially priorities that have been built around it.

Well those scriptures and the Person of Jesus Christ are the primary creed and testimony of all Christians. Whether they be Gnostic Christians like me or Catholic Christians or Protestant Christians. We are Christians because of the person of Jesus Christ. For God so loved the World God gave God gave God's only begotten child so none may perish but have life. Now there is the love.

 

[Desert Snake]

so you know what, i think we should get much much much more training and education in the trinity, not less. i think that might make us better followers of christ. and better lovers in this world.

This might be true on a certain level, but one can just as easily say "Yoshuah the king..( of love, etc.) have no trinity...there is still love there.

 

[Skwim]

Is it designed to tell people what it takes to qualify for salvation?

Yes.

Seems to me that it's designed to summarize what they collectively believe, and if the focus is on qualifying for salvation rather than on values and love, I think that's an interesting fact right there.

As I intimated, not every thing in life need be centered around loving one's neighbor and humanitarianism. And what I find interesting is that you apparently do. Be aware that people find other things in life important and deserving of our attention. Might want to cut them some slack and let them have their say as they wish. You're not under any obligation to go along with them are you?

I sure think it's an interesting set of priorities if one is given a single example of a prayer to pray.

Its construction is explained in Matthew 6:14-15.

"14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses"
​

Hopefully this doesn't require further elaboration.

More like, if you're going to pick about three prayers to include on a rosary to focus attention on, why focus on Mary and asking for things? The word "love" or any values at all, don't really come up in the repetitive set of rosary prayers. All that concentration that countless people do, and nothing really about being a better person. I find that curious.

I haven't the faintest idea of the "whys" and "why nots" of this Catholic prayer, but to fault the church for not including your hang-up here is interesting.

Considering I think about Christianity the least compared to most other religions, I don't think I'm "stuck in one big rut" about any of this. The definition doesn't apply.

And I think it does! So :slap: there.

Though, I guess being told I'm stuck in a rut concerning love and values, isn't the worst thing I've been told.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[nash8]

One thing I've always found strange about Christianity, is the priorities it tends to have. Love and humanitarianism, are not large priorities usually.

For example, the Nicene Creed is essentially the definition of all mainstream trinitarian Christianity, formed by early councils in the 300's. When everybody got together and argued over specific details, this is what they came up with:



Non-Christians could argue about all of that, but what I'm interested in is not what's in there, but what's not in there. Notice that the word "love" doesn't appear anywhere in there. Although there are plenty of statements on substances and who begot whom and Mary who barely appears in the Bible and various statements on gods, the widely-believed creed of what Christianity is, doesn't even include a reference of love. In fact there aren't really any values in there at all. There are no calls to action to help the sick and needy, to practice integrity and mercy and justice, or to be a good person- that all comes in secondary statements by ministers and such. The core statement of belief includes nothing about how to live, or how one's life serves divinity. It's just rote statement on metaphysics and what you get out of it.

Next is the Lord's Prayer. Unlike the Nicene Creed that was formed by a council, the Lord's Prayer is attributed to the character of Jesus, since it's described by him in the gospels.

Now that's a little bit better. If the belief is that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god, it makes sense to simply cut to the chase and acknowledge it. That's what the character of Jesus is attributed to having said before describing this prayer in the book of Matthew:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Interestingly though, it's still a rather selfish thing. Forgive others so that you will be forgiven. Pray in private, so that you will be rewarded. It's less about what can come of it, and more about what you get from it. In the prayer, there's still almost nothing about love or values. It's all asking for stuff, including needs and forgiveness, with only a passive statement of forgiving others, which requires no action. Still not any statement on values, or what humans should do in general, how they should love people, how they should act actively. The content of the prayer is put forth as less important than how you do it to maximize benefit from it. And ironically, churches I've been to, tend to stand up and say this publicly as a group, despite how Jesus said to do it privately.

For Catholics, they also have the Hail Mary:


This is a prayer to a being other than god, mostly asking for stuff, and also praising her, and nothing about love or human values.

When Catholics pray the Rosary, that set of beads, for example, they say a combination of the Apostle's Creed (essentially a shortened Nicene Creed), the Lord's Prayer, and the Hail Mary, over and over. So they spend all that time in concentration of prayer, repetition after repetition, with nothing there about love or how to be a good person. It's all substances and who begot whom and salvation. Those are the priorities.

In contrast, many schools of Buddhism, for example, have Loving Kindness Meditation, where the meditator specifically envisions and concentrates on loving-kindness for her friends, for neutral people, for enemies, and for everyone.

Or, you have examples like the Universalist Unitarians, with their seven principles and six sources:





Now I might raise an eyebrow about what they mean by "prophetic" women and men, and I may contest the notion that religion in general has had a beneficial effect on inspiring ethics, but overall, it's pretty hard to argue with lists like those. Their seven principles are particularly solid, and the six sources are diverse enough. In fact their only reference to Christianity, is the short statement by Jesus in the gospels about loving others as we love ourselves, which none of the core Christian creeds and prayers bother to mention. They get right to it, with the only sentence they give to it.

If I were to describe what I think is wrong with a lot of religion today, especially conservative religion, this would be it. A core problem in my opinion is lack of evidenced validation, but aside from that, it's that priorities are often focused on metaphysics, substances, pantheons, and what one can receive, rather than any affirmation of values and how to act ethically, or calls to love, at it's core. Ethics and how to act generally come second.

Thoughts?

Considering Christianity is the teaching's of Jesus.. all he does is talk bout love for the most part. All the stuff post Council of Nicea was used as a uniting force for Rome, as well as a means of oppression. It should be taken with a grain of salt in my opinion.

 

[nash8]

Because it continues to form a definition of the beliefs of mainstream Christianity, and continues to be collectively said in church services for various denominations.

Overall I find the content of the creeds, prayers, rituals, and proportionate time spent in services, to be an interesting use of time and space.

Think of it like a major corporation that found a great sales pitch that continually worked on people over and over again to buy their products. Why would they change it?

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Penumbra,

As others have stated, you seem to overlook entirely the purpose for which the Nicene creed, for example, was formulated. The First Council of Nicea, the first ecumenical council of the Church or second if you include the council referred to in the Book of Acts under the apostles, addressed many concerns however chief amongst them was healing the impending schism within the church between Arians and Catholics by adopting a common doctrinal profession of correct belief.

Do you reckon that you would find many references to love and ethical injunctions in a textbook on physics?

There are innumerable contexts in which references to 'love' or 'ethics' would not be at all appropriate, yet to infer from this that 'love' is not important, say, to a scientist in his private life and relations simply because he does not address it in his academic work would surely be preposterous.

Likewise, I think it is reductionist to argue that simply because a creed, designed to correct doctrinal beliefs that were leading to a schism and had nothing to do with ethics, omits to mention 'love' because it is not under contestation nor a source of the problem at hand, serves to indicate that the Early Church's priorities were somehow wrong.

The Nicene Creed uses ancient Greek terminology and philosophical terms (such as the 'Persons' and 'substance') to support an explicitly doctrinal-theological argument intended to unify Christians in the realm of belief, not ethics in which there was much broader consensus. Trinitarian theology was viewed as a supreme 'science' by the Church, which is why the creed uses generally cold, precise, articulated language in threshing out the relations between the three Persons within the Godhead.

You should be aware that you appear to be confusing 'creeds' with 'catechisms'. Creeds are not intended to be comprehensive outlines of the Christian Faith in its fullness, rather they are short, expository declarations of core beliefs that define the religious community in question and its membership, somewhat like the manifesto of a golf club, although in response to some kind of doctrinal dispute causing a schism. They are not manuals for how to be upstanding members, merely brief outlines of requirements in response to crises.

'Catechisms' on the other hand are designed to be MANUALS for not only doctrine but Christian practice. Catechisms deal both with orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct action), whereas creeds in the traditional sense are concerned purely with the former and addressed to specific theological disputes that are sources of schism or potential schism.

You neglect the fact that Buddhism also exhibits such an appreciation of the importance of both 'belief' and 'action' in defining the Sangha. Consider the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path followed by Therevada and most Mahayana:

1.Right Belief
2.Right Aspiration
3.Right Effort
4.Right Speech
5.Right Conduct
6.Right Livelihood
7.Right Mindfulness
8.Right Concentration

Note that 'right belief' (orthodoxy) comes first and before orthopraxy (right conduct).

If you look at previous catechisms of the Church, you will find abundant references to ethics. Consider the 'Roman Catechism' produced by the Council of Trent (1545):

THE ROMAN CATECHISM

It has a whole section devoted to the "Ten Commandments" and an exposition of morality, such as:

THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Ten Commandments -- Introduction

Since, then, the Decalogue is a summary of the whole Law, the pastor should give his days and nights to its consideration, that he may be able not only to regulate his own life by its precepts, but also to instruct in the law of God the people committed to his care...The pastor should also teach that the Commandments of God are not difficult, as these words of St Augustine are alone sufficient to show: How, I ask, is it said to be impossible for man to love to love, I say, a beneficent Creator, a most loving Father, and also, in the persons of his , brethren to love his own flesh? Yet, "he who loveth has fulfilled the law." Hence the Apostle St. John expressly says that the commandments of God are not heavy; for as St. Bernard observes, nothing more just could be exacted from man, nothing that could confer on him a more exalted dignity, nothing more advantageous. Hence St. Augustine, filled with admiration of God's infinite goodness, thus addresses God : What is man that Thou wouldst be loved by him ? And if he loves Thee not, Thou threatenest t him with heavy punishment. Is it not punishment enough that I love Thee not ?

But should anyone plead human infirmity to excuse himself for not loving God, it should be explained that He who demands our love pours into our hearts by the Holy Ghost the fervour of His love; and this good Spirit our heavenly Father gives to those that ask him with reason, therefore, did St. Augustine pray: Give what thou commandest and command what thou pleasest. As, then, God is ever ready to help us, especially since the death of Christ the Lord, by which the prince of this world was cast out, there is no reason why anyone should be disheartened by the difficulty of the undertaking. To him who loves, nothing is difficult.

This kind of moral teaching would be out of place in a traditional short 'creed', in the same way in which 'Pride and Prejudice' has a totally distinct genre from 'Harry Potter'.

Nevertheless, you also appear to overlook the fact that an ecumenical council in its entirety is the highest binding teaching authority within traditional Christianity, whether Catholic or Orthodox (although, of course, in Catholic theology the Pope can exercise this function himself through infallibility without a council).

Therefore the entirety of the Council of Nicea is important, not just a single part of it 'the Creed'.

Many of the canons of Nicea, as with every other subsequent ecumenical council, does actually deal with ethics - just not in the 'creed' because as stated ethics were not part of the 'genre' of such statements of doctrine.

Here is a list of some of the canons of the council:

The Canons of the Council of Nicea

Note how ethical these were:

Canon 12

As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military belts, but afterwards returned, like dogs, to their own vomit, (so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations); let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and what their repentance appears to be like. For as many as give evidence of their conversions by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers; and after that the bishop may determine yet more favourably concerning them. But those who take [the matter] with indifference, and who think the form of [not] entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfil the whole time.

This canon condemns returning to military service for those who have already abandoned the taking of other human lives after their conversion to Christianity.

Canon 17

Forasmuch as many enrolled among the Clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, "He hath not given his money upon usury," and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum, the holy and great Synod thinks it just that if after this decree any one be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding the whole and one half, or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.

This canon regulates the wealth and greed of clergy. Highly ethical, no?

In addition to these canons and the creed, there were also official epistles issued which are replete with moral guidance.

 

[dawny0826]

Are confirmations of belief, and instructions on how to live or what values people have, necessarily separate things?

I work for a non-profit organization. We have a mission statement. The statement summates what we do for our community, but, you wouldn't, by our mission statement alone, grasp the full scope of our services and responsibilities.

My experiences in recitation of the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are as follows:

• Recited (often through song) during the praise and worship time of a sermon
• Recited by the full congregration to set the preface or tone of our intentions when coming before God for worship and learning

In my experiences, the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are utilized to proclaim faith to God. To understand how to live for God , one must study and abide by his Word.

What is said about love in the Word?

John 13:34-35 (KJV)
"A new commandment that I give unto you. That ye love one another: as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another."

Mark 12:30-31 (KJV)
"And thou shalt love the Lord God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second, is like, namely this. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Source: Romans 13:8-10 NKJV - Love Your Neighbor - Owe no one - Bible Gateway

Romans 13:8-10 (NKJV)

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[a] “You shall not covet,”[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[c] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

What if certain values and ways of living, are things they believe in? It seems to me that it's a choice to not include values from the creeds and prayers, as though they weren't the priority. And in practice, I've not seen that they are the priority.

Where do you think the Creeds came from? They came from the Word. Save the Lord's prayer, you won't find either written in one place as we recite them. But, the meat is there, within the pages of the Word.

Love was Christ's first commandment to us. To first love God with all our might and second, to love everyone else.

If the Nicene or Apostle's Creed are accurate summations of a person's faith, they accept their responsibility to love according to Christ's instruction.

 

[Nooj]

a formula is no place in which to talk about love. love has more risk of getting devalued the more it gets more prominent, ironically enough. why? because it normalises love, it makes it predictable.

if you recited love poems in a fixed position at a fixed time, then it becomes normal in the bad sense, normal as in it loses the radical aspect of what is being asked of us.

especially if it's in the most important place, especially if it's talked about a lot. clearly we want love to be 'normal' to us, as in naturalised to our character and being, so that we are loving people, but then how do we become naturally loving people?

i'd argue it's not to do do the religious equivalent of becoming a pop songwriter who repeats the tropes of love and romance so much that we lose all hold of reality on it. can you even teach someone how to love another person? can you inspire love in a person by telling someone to love?

you can say 'god is love' until you go blue in the face a million times, but it won't do jack unless you actually love like jesus loved us.

mindless repetition (as opposed to mindful repetition), which unfortunately can happen to really important dogmatic statements, is the antithesis of love (and belief as well!).

it's better to say 'i love you' once and mean it, showing it in your life, than to say i love you a million times and never mean it. it's better to say i believe in one god, father, allmighty etc etc and act accordingly than to say i believe in one god, father, allmighty etc etc a million times and live your life like that's not true.

maybe being quieter about love, and leaving theological statements about love to places like private bible readings (paul still has the most beautiful statements of love) or even papal encyclicals (pope benedict's deus caritas est 'god is love') which one can come to and read on their own day after day, is better for love.

or maybe it's more important not to speak about love, but to actually love. do we need to speak about love so much in order to actually love?

 

[Penumbra]

Dear Penumbra,

As others have stated, you seem to overlook entirely the purpose for which the Nicene creed, for example, was formulated. The First Council of Nicea, the first ecumenical council of the Church or second if you include the council referred to in the Book of Acts under the apostles, addressed many concerns however chief amongst them was healing the impending schism within the church between Arians and Catholics by adopting a common doctrinal profession of correct belief.

I'm not overlooking it. That's what they choose to focus on. I understand they wanted to build unity. The fact that they were having this big upcoming schism regarding metaphysics and doctrines- what does that say right there about what these people were focusing on?

Do you reckon that you would find many references to love and ethical injunctions in a textbook on physics?

Do physicists get together and recite them together every week, as basically a definition of why they're there and what they have in common? If no, then I don't think this is a reasonable comparison.

There are innumerable contexts in which references to 'love' or 'ethics' would not be at all appropriate, yet to infer from this that 'love' is not important, say, to a scientist in his private life and relations simply because he does not address it in his academic work would surely be preposterous.

Scientists go to work, and they do work. People go to a church, and the point is to commune with each other, basically. You're saying that self-improvement and focusing on love shouldn't be a priority at churches you go to?

Likewise, I think it is reductionist to argue that simply because a creed, designed to correct doctrinal beliefs that were leading to a schism and had nothing to do with ethics, omits to mention 'love' because it is not under contestation nor a source of the problem at hand, serves to indicate that the Early Church's priorities were somehow wrong.

The Nicene Creed uses ancient Greek terminology and philosophical terms (such as the 'Persons' and 'substance') to support an explicitly doctrinal-theological argument intended to unify Christians in the realm of belief, not ethics in which there was much broader consensus. Trinitarian theology was viewed as a supreme 'science' by the Church, which is why the creed uses generally cold, precise, articulated language in threshing out the relations between the three Persons within the Godhead.

You should be aware that you appear to be confusing 'creeds' with 'catechisms'. Creeds are not intended to be comprehensive outlines of the Christian Faith in its fullness, rather they are short, expository declarations of core beliefs that define the religious community in question and its membership, somewhat like the manifesto of a golf club, although in response to some kind of doctrinal dispute causing a schism. They are not manuals for how to be upstanding members, merely brief outlines of requirements in response to crises.

'Catechisms' on the other hand are designed to be MANUALS for not only doctrine but Christian practice. Catechisms deal both with orthodoxy (correct belief) and orthopraxy (correct action), whereas creeds in the traditional sense are concerned purely with the former and addressed to specific theological disputes that are sources of schism or potential schism.

I know what a creed is. It's a statement about a set of beliefs. Belief can include values.

For example, here's a statement on belief, which is largely focused on values:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So the Nicene Creed uses various statements of what they believe, what they share in common, and don't bother to mention anything regarding love or ethics. That's a choice, a priority.

And you talk of the Catechism, which I'm familiar with, but it's not like Catholics get together and recite that every week. You go to mass, correct? How is the time spent? Mass follows the same outline every time, down to when which prayers and which creeds get said at which time, and the precise time in which people will shake hands, the precise time the fairly long ritual regarding bread and wine will occur, the precise time people will read Bible passages, the precise time the priest will give a sermon, etc. And then people pray the rosary, all that time spent in concentration, doesn't include anything on love, ethics, or being a better person, and is instead asking for stuff, reciting a creed regarding metaphysics, etc. When people go to confession and the priest forgives them and tells them to go, he often tells them to say these prayers as penance- these prayers that aren't actually about being better people.

So saying basically, "all of the ethical stuff is over there in that lengthy book", misses what I'm saying. It's what people choose to focus on, week after week, especially collectively. They don't pull out the Catechism each week. They do the rituals, they do these prayers and creeds without love and ethics in them, they listen to Bible readings of which some will be about ethics and some will not, they listen to a sermon that could be about anything, they sing songs which are often not regarding ethics. The bulk of the time is on rituals, creeds, etc.

If the character of Jesus depicted in the Bible is similar in terms of priorities to what the real person may have been, like do you think he'd like what he'd see today? People in elaborate buildings, with a sculpture of him hanging on a torture device, reciting certain creeds at certain times, going through all that?

You neglect the fact that Buddhism also exhibits such an appreciation of the importance of both 'belief' and 'action' in defining the Sangha. Consider the Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path followed by Therevada and most Mahayana:

1.Right Belief
2.Right Aspiration
3.Right Effort
4.Right Speech
5.Right Conduct
6.Right Livelihood
7.Right Mindfulness
8.Right Concentration

Note that 'right belief' (orthodoxy) comes first and before orthopraxy (right conduct).

That example seems to convey the exact opposite of what you're saying, and instead agrees with what I'm saying.

That set of eight things, does include statements on ethics and how to behave and be a better person, unlike the core creeds and prayers of Christianity. In particular, right speech, conduct, and livelihood, are ethical guidelines. They get expanded in Buddhist scriptures (much like how you've been talking about the catechism, or how others have been referencing the Bible), but the point there is, they have 8 things to say, a core list that's easy to share, and many of them do concern ethics. That's a choice, and a statement on their priorities, compared to the Christian creeds and prayers that have different priorities.

If you look at previous catechisms of the Church, you will find abundant references to ethics. Consider the 'Roman Catechism' produced by the Council of Trent (1545):

THE ROMAN CATECHISM

It has a whole section devoted to the "Ten Commandments" and an exposition of morality, such as:

THE CATECHISM OF TRENT: The Ten Commandments -- Introduction

This kind of moral teaching would be out of place in a traditional short 'creed', in the same way in which 'Pride and Prejudice' has a totally distinct genre from 'Harry Potter'.

It's not out of place if people are talking about what they collectively believe. What people collectively belief, can and often does include beliefs regarding shared values, shared statements on what to do or how to act.

Nevertheless, you also appear to overlook the fact that an ecumenical council in its entirety is the highest binding teaching authority within traditional Christianity, whether Catholic or Orthodox (although, of course, in Catholic theology the Pope can exercise this function himself through infallibility without a council).

Therefore the entirety of the Council of Nicea is important, not just a single part of it 'the Creed'.

And which part of the Council of Nicea gets stated at mass each week?

Many of the canons of Nicea, as with every other subsequent ecumenical council, does actually deal with ethics - just not in the 'creed' because as stated ethics were not part of the 'genre' of such statements of doctrine.

Here is a list of some of the canons of the council:

The Canons of the Council of Nicea

Note how ethical these were:

This canon condemns returning to military service for those who have already abandoned the taking of other human lives after their conversion to Christianity.

This canon regulates the wealth and greed of clergy. Highly ethical, no?

In addition to these canons and the creed, there were also official epistles issued which are replete with moral guidance.

Yes, and all of those are in the background. I said in the very first post that these things are secondary in Christianity, not nonexistent.

 

[Nooj]

From attending Catholic churches as well as some services of other denominations, I find that in fact, the priorities seem to be on that. Catholic church involved all of those prayers I mentioned, plus plenty of rituals, and then little bits of bible readings and a sermon, along with some songs which focused on similar things as those prayers and creeds. If you make a pie chart about how the time was spent, very little was about love or being a better person, and the bulk of it is on doctrines, declarations of orthodoxy regarding metaphysics, and rituals. Different denominations have different focuses, but other ones I've been to, still had a lot of ritual, saying of prayers like this, and so forth.

i've never been part of roman catholicism. i go to a pentacostal church and i found similar things to you, except no reciting of creeds. however, i find the emphasis on those bible readings and the sermons and the prayers we pray and the songs we sing have the purpose of encouraging and praising and making lovely the love of god and love of neighbour.

I specifically included the UU Principles and Sources as a comparison, to show what a definition of a belief system can look like. They choose to use their core statement about who they are, to focus on a lot of values like justice, love, liberty, compassion, environmentalism, peace, and so forth. They could have focused on something else. Christians historically and continue to choose to use these creeds of metaphysical orthodoxy instead. Same thing when you look at what the church services are like, and what they spend their time talking about, and what's on their websites, and so forth.

metaphysical orthodoxy is part and parcel of what the common core values of christianity are. when we say that god became man, in the cosmos changing event of the incarnation, that which doctrine teaches, that is not something we add on to the universal value of love and compassion, it's not something that you can take away like an covering veil and discover the true gem inside. it's not fluff that is extraneous to the message.

god becoming man IS the true gem, and it is the message, and IS the true universal value of love and compassion. god becoming man is how god demonstrated his love and compassion for us, and liberty, and peace, and environmentalism as well.

the incarnation is not important because the creeds tell us so, but rather the creeds are only important because the incarnation is important, and so the creeds have something to say. like i said, before they are methods of division, they actually mean something. because they mean something, they become methods of division and tools of power. only when we don't realise that do they seem empty. only when we think of the doctrines that are enshrined in the creeds as lacking meaning for us do the doctrines and the creeds seem useless and extraneous.

take for example the incarnation. god did not take on human appearance, humanity was not a guise, jesus' humanity was not something accidental to who he was, but jesus was human, truly human. furthermore, this has a cosmic impact, because when the creator became a creature, he took in all creation (jesus is the new adam, the new creation and from here you get things like christian environmentalism, where we see christ in creation, because creation is within christ) and when god became human, jesus took in all humanity and became 'saved humanity', which is the very reason that we say that the church (the communion of saved humanity) is the body of christ. as you consume his flesh and drink his blood, you become part of christ's fleshy and bloody body in all the variety that exists within the church, which is the body of christ. the body itself is multibodied, comprised of many shapes and colours and fleshy bits and many occupations and origins and speaks many languages. from this important concept, we get the idea that by looking into the faces of people around us, believers and non-believers, women and men, jew or gentile, tall or short, we are seeing the faces of christ himself. the doctrine of the incarnation tells us to examine and love people more carefully, for if we don't find christ in the face of a passerby, we won't see christ anywhere.

but it's important to realise that we are not quite as human as jesus is. i mean we're all human, but we're not as fully human as jesus is. jesus is humanity as it was meant to be in the eyes of god, before the fall. being saved means we become more human than we ever were, more like us than we've ever been in our lives. jesus was saved. we become saved by partaking of his Body. we 'wear' Christ, we become like Christ, we move towards god's divine nature, what the orthodox call theosis and the westerns call divinisation.

in the chalcedonian creed we affirm that christ is both fully god and fully human, two natures and one person, not mixed. from this statement theologians understood something profound was being taught, namely perichoresis - intepenetration. the divine and human nature in the person of jesus penetrate within each other without any mixing, so that the natures remain separate, union without confusion. likewise in becoming the body of christ, we are invited to interpenetrate into the divine nature, becoming like god. as st. athanasius writes in de incarnatione 'on the incarnation', 'Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν͵ ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν': He [the Word of God] was made man, that we might be made god. so with the doctrine of the incarnation comes an understanding of our salvation, where 'following christ' is understood more deeply as becoming more christ-like in every way, including in his very identity.

it's important to note that the church is not the church in the sense of the congregation who enters into the grounds of a building which we also call a church, or any of the many denominations or even any of the billions of christians around the world, but the church as the Church, the body of people who are saved in the eyes of god, in the end times. for this reason, we cannot determine who is a member of the church and who isn't, where the church ends and where the church begins and here i mean the church as the Church. here is my great dissent from many christian institutions, as i think many too readily identify their temporal confessional congregation with that body of Christ.

where is the fluff here? where is the bit you can abandon to find the important core? christianity makes sense to me in its doctrines and its creeds. properly taught, i find it very beautiful and encouraging towards kindness and compassion. if christians aren't being taught that, then that is a very real problem. but abandoning or downplaying the metaphysical stuff is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, because i find the metaphysical orthodoxy acts as a support towards kindness and compassion.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Penumbra,

Thank you for the reply! :yes:

Scientists go to work, and they do work. People go to a church, and the point is to commune with each other, basically. You're saying that self-improvement and focusing on love shouldn't be a priority at churches you go to?

Not at all! I'm saying that they don't have to form part of a creed oriented towards doctrinal unity, not that they shouldn't be a priority at church.

I know what a creed is. It's a statement about a set of beliefs. Belief can include values.

They can, yes, if values are what is causing the grave situation that demands the creed in question.

The fact is, however, that ethical debate was not causing sufficient problems for a creed of a value-centric nature to be necessary at the council of Nicea.

The traditional Christian creeds do not concern much in the way of ethics, because moral debates had not resulted in potential schisms between different groups.

This is the same in most religions. What most separates Mahayana and Therevada Buddhists? They share (with perhaps the exception of Nichren) the Noble Eightfold Path and the basic moral precepts of the Buddha but diverge in terms mainly of metaphysics, such as Nagarjuna's sunyata concept and canonical issues such as the later sutras that the Therevadins do not accept.

For example, here's a statement on belief, which is largely focused on values:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes and that was because the American Revolution was an Enlightenment born campaign for liberal values and traditional English rights that the colonists were supposedly being denied by the British, such as "no tax without representation".

If a moral issue or worldview is what causes the problem at hand, it would make sense to have a document that addresses that concern.

But when it isn't, it isn't!

So the Nicene Creed uses various statements of what they believe, what they share in common, and don't bother to mention anything regarding love or ethics. That's a choice, a priority.

No, it is not that they didn't "bother" to mention it but rather that it would have been pointless to reiterate what everyone already knew and accepted.

I highly doubt that any council father present at Nicea would have disputed Jesus teachings on caring for the sick, the maimed, the disabled, loving one's neighbours and enemies or so forth.

And you talk of the Catechism, which I'm familiar with, but it's not like Catholics get together and recite that every week

.

You've got it topsy-turvy, perhaps because you are like me a child of Vatican II and do not recall the 'old' way of the church before that council (which was in many respects as mammoth as Nicea). It is only a very recent phenomenon, post-1960s, in which Catholics can collectively recite the creed. My grandparents are fairly old Catholics, both aged in their late 80s. Their earliest memories of learning about their religion at Catholic school was through 'catechism class'. Every Catholic child had to sit through a whole hour of catechism instruction via a question-and-answer format. As a result they can recite off-by-heart many portions of the catechism that was then in use, the so-called "Penny Catechism". This was drummed into them:

Catechism of Christian Doctrine

They can recite massive portions of it.

In the pre-Vatican II 'Tridentine' Mass the laity were silent throughout the service and the priest had his back turned to them, leaving them to look at the statues, icons, paintings on the glass window panes and the ritual. These were all educative in nature, deliberately so for those who were illiterate and could not read the bible or other devotional texts:

Read:

http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/word/moral.htm

The ultimate source of moral instruction was the Bible, but ordinary lay people did not, on the whole, possess one of these. The moral messages of the Bible were translated to them through the preachings of the clergy and through the paintings, carvings and stained glass of the churches where they worshipped. Moral messages were encoded in the depiction of Biblical stories, in the depiction of the virtues of the saints and in straightforward didactic imagery. The Virtues and the Vices, or the Seven Deadly Sins, adorned walls and pews. Representations of the Last Judgement on the tympana of the entrance portals of major churches in France, or painted above the chancel arch in English parish churches, not only focused the mind on the perils of the hereafter but depicted very literal and appropriate punishments for certain classes of sins.

I would love it if we could transport back to 13th century France and ask a peasant to recite the Nicene Creed He would likely have never even heard of Nicea.

But if you asked him what were the "seven deadly sins", "the seven corporal works of mercy" and the "stations of the cross", he'd have been able to tell you thanks to his catechesis in childhood.

The Mass was in Latin, except for the homily, and since most Catholic laypersons could not speak Latin, the vast majority would not have known a word of the creed in their native, vernacular tongue. The traditional means of learning about their faith would have been through catechesis, not a creed using high theological talk that most laity would have thought largely above their knowledge or even nonsensical:

Catechesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been numerous catechisms (as well as other purely moral documents such as Sentences, a popular ethical genre of the middle ages), the most recent produced in 1992 which every Catholic home is encouraged by the Church to contain because it is described as the "sure norm" for our faith. Whether they have a catechism in their house along with a bible is probably a good barometer of how deeply entrenched the said Catholic is in their religion.

One of the earliest catechisms was the Didache:

Didache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is nearly entirely about morals and bereft of any metaphysical formulations. It begins with a long section on morality known as the "Two Ways". The Catholic Church includes it in a cadre of extra-canonical but highly authoritative texts known as the "Apostolic Fathers" collection:

Apostolic Fathers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Didache is still used as a reference in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, as it is the first true catechism produced by the church.

Another example, widely used during the middle ages to teach laity, was St. Augustine's Enchiridion:

Enchiridion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In every era of the Church such catechisms have been produced and together with formal oral instruction, visual and aural education through stained glass windows, paintings, icons, hymns, virtue plays etc. this was the primary means through which laypeople learned about their faith, not the Nicene Creed.

 

[Vouthon]

I'm not overlooking it. That's what they choose to focus on. I understand they wanted to build unity. The fact that they were having this big upcoming schism regarding metaphysics and doctrines- what does that say right there about what these people were focusing on?

I think it is an assumption, and one questionable in itself, to argue that just because it was in the field of metaphysical formulations and dogma, rather than ethics, that a terminal rift had arisen within the body of the Church and was therefore undermining social unity, that this means dogma was the only or primary topic of importance for the council fathers and henceforth for the majority of orthodox, creed-reciting Christians as a whole to this day.

There are two ways of looking at it:

1) the early church was clearly obsessed with dogma and relegated morality or orthopraxy to an inferior degree, as evidenced by the fact that a creed needed to be drawn up to create doctrinal unity, thereby exposing their flawed focus/priorities

2) there was little or no significant disputes in terms of living a Christian life, which is why the primary areas of contention were metaphysical rather than moral

The latter seems the more plausible to me.

Scholars have in recent decades shone a light on the extent to which Christianity in the first three centuries, taken as a whole, was heterogeneous rather than homogenous in terms of doctrinal belief.

When Christianity was legalized by Constantine (who while he did not make it the state religion, encouraged it to become the dominant religion) this doctrinal plurality was simply not conducive for a religion that could viably and conceivably become a source of social and civic unity, other than in the ethical domain - in which Christians of all stripes had renounced idol worship, practised love for their enemies, cared for the sick during the Roman plagues and so on. There was broad and consistent agreement between Christians on the basic ethical foundations of the Christian life which was necessary for salvation, which is why practically no sects or sub-groups were formed because of distinctive ethical beliefs. The Arians, Marcionites, Nestorians, Monophysites and Montanists (among others who branched off into different, competing sects) were defined by their plurality of metaphysical speculations about the deity (or lack thereof) of Christ, the Three Persons, the extent to which Judaic practices were acceptable, the significance of secret knowledge vs faith as a means to salvation, the biblical canon and ad infinitum.

There simply had to be unity in the doctrinal sphere, because it was in this area in particular that the early Christian Church was sorely deficient, which is why it was such a huge focus, for the religion to succeed rather than implode which is why Constantine gathered the bishops together, made them debate and then vote on a series of resolutions that by majoritarian consensus came up with the Nicene creed and the other canons. This was, in that respect, a highly rational and prudential course of action.

If there is a problem exposed, there has to be a solution. Early Christianity had a serious problem in that there was a plurality of doctrinal disputes within the Church and the broader Christian movement, that impeded its growth potential and solidarity.

There weren't such disputes in terms of ethics. In fact, most religions have similar core ethical precepts. It is in metaphysics and conceptual beliefs that most religions and even political ideologies (ie whether to have a planned economy or a capitalist free-market one) diverge, rather than "fraternity, peace, brotherhood" and other moral norms that can be arrived at simply through conscience rather than some kind of divine revelation. In saying this I am not disputing the fact of distinctive morals teachings as well, I should add, between different faiths.

 

[Vouthon]

You go to mass, correct? How is the time spent? Mass follows the same outline every time, down to when which prayers and which creeds get said at which time, and the precise time in which people will shake hands, the precise time the fairly long ritual regarding bread and wine will occur, the precise time people will read Bible passages, the precise time the priest will give a sermon, etc.

Yes, the Mass follows a clearly defined liturgy that is divided into "ordinary time" and extraordinary occasions such as "Lent", "Easter", "Christmas" and "Advent". However there have been many different liturgies used throughout the history of the church and depending on whether one is an Eastern or Western Catholic or even belongs to a certain order, at the moment as well.

The one most currently in use is the "Novus Ordo" created under the papacy of Paul VI in the late 60s to early 70s, so I will dwell on that a little. This was actually amended somewhat under the last pontificate, such that the Mass is now different in parts to how it likely was when you were growing up.

Here is a link to the missal for this liturgy:

Order of Mass

It begins with the sign of the cross and then this greeting:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

and the love of God,

and the communion of the Holy Spirit

be with you all.

This is a blessing for unity in Christ and concord through the love of God.

Then comes the "Penitential Rite":

Penitential Act

The Priest invites the faithful to the Penitential Act.


Brethren (brothers and sisters), let us acknowledge our sins,

and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.

There is a moments silence in which people reflect on their sins and ask God for forgiveness for what they have done wrong. This is ethical self-reflection, peering into one's own conscience.

Then this prayer follows in unison by all the faithful:

All say:


I confess to almighty God

and to you, my brothers and sisters,

that I have greatly sinned,

in my thoughts and in my words,

in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,

And, striking their breast, they say:


through my fault,

through my fault,

through my most grievous fault

One apologizes both to God and to one's fellows for any sinful acts committed, whether by "thought", or "word" or "in what I have done" or "failed to do". This is exactly what Buddhists reflect on too: right thought, right speech and right deeds.

And moreover the congregation is invited not only to reflect on what they have done wrong but also on what righteous deeds they have failed to do, that is sins of omission such as failing to help someone in their hour of need.

Let us proceed....

The Kyrie follows, asking God to have mercy on us for the sinful thoughts, words, deeds or omissions we have just apologized for.

Then the "Gloria" comes in which we say:

Glory to God in the highest,

and on earth peace to people of good will.

This too is moral, asking for peace on earth.

Then comes the Collect in which everyone prays in silence again reflecting on the words of the "Gloria".

Then comes the "Liturgy of the Word", which consists generally on one Old Testament reading, a recitation of a Psalm, one reading from a New Testament epistle and a Gospel reading.

I'm going to quote this Sunday's readings as a random example:

The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity

Reading 1 is from the Book of Exodus:

Early in the morning Moses went up Mount Sinai
as the LORD had commanded him,
taking along the two stone tablets.

Having come down in a cloud, the LORD stood with Moses there
and proclaimed his name, "LORD."
Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out,
"The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God,
slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity."
Moses at once bowed down to the ground in worship.
Then he said, "If I find favor with you, O Lord,
do come along in our company.
This is indeed a stiff-necked people; yet pardon our wickedness and sins,
and receive us as your own."

This is ethical (Catholics believe that every biblical verse has a moral significance).

Reading 2 is from 2 Corinthians:

Brothers and sisters, rejoice.
Mend your ways, encourage one another,
agree with one another, live in peace,
and the God of love and peace will be with you.
Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the holy ones greet you.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
and the love of God
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

Again, ethical.

Reading 3 is from the Gospel of John:

God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.

Ethical in that Jesus sacrificed himself for the world.

The Mass continues now with the "Homily".

Now, what should a homily discuss?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):

Chapter II: The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements, and Its Parts

29. When the Sacred Scriptures are read in the Church, God himself speaks to his people, and Christ, present in his own word, proclaims the Gospel. Therefore, all must listen with reverence to the readings from God's word, for they make up an element of greatest importance in the Liturgy. Although in the readings from Sacred Scripture God's word is addressed to all people of every era and is understandable to them, nevertheless, a fuller understanding and a greater effectiveness of the word is fostered by a living commentary on the word, that is, the Homily, as part of the liturgical action.


65. The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

The Homily is intended to help people live as Christians (orthopraxy and not orthodoxy).

Then follows the Creed.

After the creed comes the "Universal Prayer" section of the Mass:

The Universal Prayer

69. In the Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful, the people respond in some sense to the Word of God which they have received in faith and, exercising the office of their baptismal Priesthood, offer prayers to God for the salvation of all. It is desirable that there usually be such a form of prayer in Masses celebrated with the people, so that petitions may be offered for holy Church, for those who govern with authority over us, for those weighed down by various needs, for all humanity, and for the salvation of the whole world.[66]

70. The series of intentions is usually to be:

a) for the needs of the Church;

b) for public authorities and the salvation of the whole world;

c) for those burdened by any kind of difficulty;

d) for the local community.

The names of anyone who is ill are read out, we ask God to help political leaders make correct decisions, we pray for current situations such as victims of war in Syria. In last week's mass, our priest mentioned the Ukranian people and those suffering in South Sudan.

Again, this section of the mass is ethical.

Then comes the Eucharist. This is obviously less focused on ethical matters, it is overtly ritualistic.

I could go on but needless to say there is generally a considerable degree of moral teaching and reflection in a Catholic Mass.

The most important thing is reflecting on your own sins and being accountable for your own acts, which is why moments of silence are so important for the mass, offering time for self-evaluation. This is because Catholicism places great importance on conscience and the formation of conscience:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47...

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection: ...

 

[Vouthon]

And then people pray the rosary, all that time spent in concentration, doesn't include anything on love, ethics, or being a better person, and is instead asking for stuff, reciting a creed regarding metaphysics, etc. When people go to confession and the priest forgives them and tells them to go, he often tells them to say these prayers as penance- these prayers that aren't actually about being better people.

The Rosary is not about "asking for stuff" and it in itself is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as Catholic spirituality is concerned. It is about conforming your own will to the will of God. It is about detachment and self-mortification, the opposite of "asking for stuff", unless the 'stuff' in question is faith, hope, charity and conversion of heart. Yes, we do ask for that

The rosary is primarily a tool for meditation or contemplation. Here is an apostolic letter by Pope St. John Paul II on the "rosary":

Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae

The Rosary, a contemplative prayer

12. The Rosary, precisely because it starts with Mary's own experience, is an exquisitely contemplative prayer. Without this contemplative dimension, it would lose its meaning, as Pope Paul VI clearly pointed out: “Without contemplation, the Rosary is a body without a soul, and its recitation runs the risk of becoming a mechanical repetition of formulas, in violation of the admonition of Christ: 'In praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think they will be heard for their many words' (Mt 6:7). By its nature the recitation of the Rosary calls for a quiet rhythm and a lingering pace, helping the individual to meditate on the mysteries of the Lord's life as seen through the eyes of her who was closest to the Lord. In this way the unfathomable riches of these mysteries are disclosed”.(14)...Contemplating the scenes of the Rosary in union with Mary is a means of learning from her to “read” Christ, to discover his secrets and to understand his message...

The Rosary mystically transports us to Mary's side as she is busy watching over the human growth of Christ in the home of Nazareth. This enables her to train us and to mold us with the same care, until Christ is “fully formed” in us (cf. Gal 4:19)....This is the luminous principle expressed by the Second Vatican Council which I have so powerfully experienced in my own life and have made the basis of my episcopal motto: Totus Tuus.(21) The motto is of course inspired by the teaching of Saint Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort, who explained in the following words Mary's role in the process of our configuration to Christ: “Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ. Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ”.(22)

You have focused upon the mere mechanical repetition of the "Hail Mary", "Our Father" and "Glory be" but not the real essence of the prayer.

The Rosary comprises twenty decades. Each decade is recited in honour of a 'mystery' in Jesus' Life or in that of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The practitioner recites five decades at a time while meditating on one set of these mysteries.

The person praying the Rosary uses his mental faculties to reflect on an episode from Christ's or Mary's life and asks for grace mediated through the Blessed Virgin to understand it just as she, in her boundless goodness and purity, would have done. The practitioner therefore takes Mary as his teacher and each "mystery" holds moral significance that the person is to apply to their own life:

Rosary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mysteries of the Rosary are meditations on episodes in the life and death of Jesus from the Annunciation to the Ascension and beyond,[46] known as the Joyful (or Joyous) Mysteries, the Sorrowful Mysteries, and the Glorious Mysteries. Each of these Mysteries contemplates five different stages of Christ's life.[46]...

Joyful Mysteries

1.The Annunciation. Fruit of the Mystery: Humility
2.The Visitation. Fruit of the Mystery: Love of Neighbors
3.The Nativity. Fruit of the Mystery: Poverty (poor in spirit), Detachment from the things of the world, Contempt of Riches, Love of the Poor
4.The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Fruit of the Mystery: Purity, Obedience
5.The Finding of Jesus in the Temple. Fruit of the Mystery: True Wisdom and True Conversion, Piety, Joy of Finding Jesus

Luminous Mysteries

1.The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. Fruit of the Mystery: Openness to the Holy Spirit, the Healer.
2.The Wedding at Cana. Fruit of the Mystery: To Jesus through Mary. The understanding of the ability to manifest-through faith.
3.Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Fruit of the Mystery: Trust in God (Call of Conversion to Messiah)
4.The Transfiguration. Fruit of the Mystery: Desire for Holiness
5.The Institution of the Eucharist. Fruit of the Mystery: Adoration

Sorrowful Mysteries

1.The Agony in the Garden. Fruit of the Mystery: Sorrow for Sin, Uniformity with the will of God
2.The Scourging at the Pillar. Fruit of the Mystery: Mortification, Purity
3.The Crowning with Thorns. Fruit of the Mystery: Contempt of the world, Courage
4.The Carrying of the Cross. Fruit of the Mystery: Patience
5.The Crucifixion. Fruit of the Mystery: Salvation, Forgiveness

Glorious Mysteries

1.The Resurrection. Fruit of the Mystery: Faith
2.The Ascension. Fruit of the Mystery: Hope and desire for ascension to Heaven
3.The Descent of the Holy Spirit. Fruit of the Mystery: Holy Wisdom to know the truth and share with everyone, Divine Charity, Worship of the Holy Spirit
4.The Assumption of Mary. Fruit of the Mystery: Grace of a Happy Death and True Devotion towards Mary
5.The Coronation of the Virgin. Fruit of the Mystery: Perseverance and Crown of Glory, Trust in Mary's Intercession

The Rosary is therefore about learning from and emulating the life of Christ through the guidance of His Blessed Mother and devotion to her.

It therefore helps the Christian to become like Jesus, both in his humanity and through grace his divinity, which the Anglo-Catholic mystic Evelyn Underhill explained was the essence of Christian spirituality:

“...Further, these mystics see in the historic life of Christ an epitome—or if you will, an exhibition—of the essentials of all spiritual life. There they see dramatized not only the cosmic process of the Divine Wisdom, but also the inward experience of every soul on her way to union with that Absolute ‘to which the whole Creation moves.’ This is why the expressions which they use to describe the evolution of the mystical consciousness from the birth of the divine in the spark of the soul to its final unification with the Absolute Life are so constantly chosen from the Drama of Faith. In this drama they see described under the veils the necessary adventures of the spirit. Its obscure and humble birth, its education in poverty, its temptation, mortification and solitude, its ‘illuminated life‘ of service and contemplation, the desolation of that ‘dark night of the soul‘ in which it seems abandoned by the Divine: the painful death of the self, its resurrection to the glorified existence of the Unitive Way, its final re-absorption in its Source – all these, they say, were lived once in a supreme degree in the flesh. Moreover, the degree of closeness with which the individual experience adheres to this Pattern is always taken by them as a standard of the healthiness, ardor, and success of its transcendental activities...”

- Evelyn Underhill (Anglo-Catholic mystic), 1910

 

[Vouthon]

That set of eight things, does include statements on ethics and how to behave and be a better person, unlike the core creeds and prayers of Christianity.

But so does Christianity, just not in a doctrinal creed designed to heal an impending doctrinal schism. We have plenty of formulations of ethics ranging from the Ten Commandments from the OT, the Beatitudes from the NT, the Corporal Works of Mercy, the Rosary (which as stated above is ethically oriented), the Seven Deadly Sins and the corresponding Cardinal Virtues and Three Theological Virtues that counteract them, catechisms and other models of catechesis etc.

In particular, right speech, conduct, and livelihood, are ethical guidelines. They get expanded in Buddhist scriptures (much like how you've been talking about the catechism, or how others have been referencing the Bible), but the point there is, they have 8 things to say, a core list that's easy to share, and many of them do concern ethics. That's a choice, and a statement on their priorities, compared to the Christian creeds and prayers that have different priorities.

So do we:



The Works of Mercy:

Works of mercy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Three Theological Virtues

Theological virtues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Four Cardinal Virtues

Cardinal virtues - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the Catechism:

The cardinal virtues

1805 Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called "cardinal"; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. "If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom's] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage."64 These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."68 "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."69

1808 Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. "The Lord is my strength and my song."70 "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."71

1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart."72 Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites."73 In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world."74


To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and uncorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence).75

The Tree of Virtues and Tree of Vices:

Tree of virtues and tree of vices - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Beatitudes

Beatitudes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But in addition to such ethical lists, we also have doctrinal creeds laying out our metaphysical beliefs.

It's not out of place if people are talking about what they collectively believe. What people collectively belief, can and often does include beliefs regarding shared values, shared statements on what to do or how to act.

Sure, but we have those. Just not in the Nicene Creed which the church existed without for over 300 years and only needed to end a doctrinal crisis.

And which part of the Council of Nicea gets stated at mass each week?

The Creed because it accurately sets forth our beliefs regarding the Trinity, the nature of Jesus, the authority of the scriptures (ie spoken through the prophets) and other matters that the council had sought to resolve once and for all in concrete form.

Yes, and all of those are in the background. I said in the very first post that these things are secondary in Christianity, not nonexistent

They are not secondary, they merely have their own place and medium of communication.